Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN]ASICMiner Publicly Looking for Potential Customers/Partners for New Chips - page 3. (Read 54971 times)

legendary
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
What if:

1. Netgear / Cisco / DLink / Zyxel / TPLink/ Asus / Belkin / a bunch of router / switch manufacturers imbed a chip in their hardware, and lower the price of their products, so more people buy them. Most people leave their routers on, all the time.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
Quote
Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.

Check the specs from rockminers testing. They have hashing samples in hand.

To be clear about the specs

SP = 4w/7gh = 0.58w/gh
AM = 6.37w/11.5gh = 0.55w/gh

Thank you. After bitfair prove all by himself that i was right with my statements now you are the second one to do the same. AM's gen3 chips have nothing special when comparing with SP-Tech SP10 chips when it comes to power consumption. We still don't know what price they will have and we still don't have measurements for a full system. So what's so important about them? The density? You are only talking about chip density since we don't have any full system available yet. Let's see if they can pack 1.4TH/s in a 1.25U box. Even if they do it they will be a couple of months later to the game.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
wrong, I have valued remaining shares at the same value of the IPO shares, you have simply ZERO-valued them.
I seriously hope that you do not run a business.

and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC

Do you talk shit just for the sake of talking shit?

I'll spell it out for you; why a company does an Initial Public Offering;

The purpose of an Initial Public Offering is to raise funds and to set the value of all shares.
Public shares are given a value, relative to the full amount of shares available, and the desired overall value sought by the company.
'Private' shares may be shares held by the company, or offered to VC's, or other investors at the value relative to the share value within the IPO.
In this, these shares are part of the IPO (in actual fact, in this case, the most part)
Overall value is calculated by public shares + private shares. Both types of shares are still valid in that 'Initial Public Offering.'

I reiterate - the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC 7500BTC

what part of this sentence do you find difficulty in understanding? and please, refrain from personal attacks in future.


Do you disagree that raised value =/= total company value?

'Overall value' in this case is for a product, not the company. The rockminer thread makes this quite clear (as I read it). For example, say Spondoolies do an Initial Public Offering based on their own Gen3 chip, then people buying into that IPO would be buying shares in the production of the Spondoolies-Tech Gen3 chip, not the overall company. I hope that this helps how you understand the purpose of an IPO.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
wrong, I have valued remaining shares at the same value of the IPO shares, you have simply ZERO-valued them.
I seriously hope that you do not run a business.

and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC

Do you talk shit just for the sake of talking shit?

I'll spell it out for you; why a company does an Initial Public Offering;

The purpose of an Initial Public Offering is to raise funds and to set the value of all shares.
Public shares are given a value, relative to the full amount of shares available, and the desired overall value sought by the company.
'Private' shares may be shares held by the company, or offered to VC's, or other investors at the value relative to the share value within the IPO.
In this, these shares are part of the IPO (in actual fact, in this case, the most part)
Overall value is calculated by public shares + private shares. Both types of shares are still valid in that 'Initial Public Offering.'

I reiterate - the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC 7500BTC

what part of this sentence do you find difficulty in understanding? and please, refrain from personal attacks in future.


Do you disagree that raised value =/= total company value?
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
wrong, I have valued remaining shares at the same value of the IPO shares, you have simply ZERO-valued them.
I seriously hope that you do not run a business.

and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC

Do you talk shit just for the sake of talking shit?

I'll spell it out for you; why a company does an Initial Public Offering;

The purpose of an Initial Public Offering is to raise funds and to set the value of all shares.
Public shares are given a value, relative to the full amount of shares available, and the desired overall value sought by the company.
'Private' shares may be shares held by the company, or offered to VC's, or other investors at the value relative to the share value within the IPO.
In this, these shares are part of the IPO (in actual fact, in this case, the most part)
Overall value is calculated by public shares + private shares. Both types of shares are still valid in that 'Initial Public Offering.'

I reiterate - the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC 7500BTC

what part of this sentence do you find difficulty in understanding? and please, refrain from personal attacks in future.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
wrong, I have valued remaining shares at the same value of the IPO shares, you have simply ZERO-valued them.
I seriously hope that you do not run a business.

and the IPO for rockminer was set out to raise around 7600BTC

Do you talk shit just for the sake of talking shit?
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
Quote
Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.

Check the specs from rockminers testing. They have hashing samples in hand.

To be clear about the specs

SP = 4w/7gh = 0.58w/gh
AM = 6.37w/11.5gh = 0.55w/gh

the difference in system performance between ones that utilise 0.58w/gh asics and those for 0.55w/gh aren't significant, and the final system power consumption 'at the wall' will also depend on other factors like how efficient the power supply used, the cooling system, the dc/dc conversion circuitry, the controller etc... so they're pretty much equal at the asic level and may well be equal at the wall too (except spondoolies is already shipping).. and we know that spondoolies has done the rest system design efficiently, and we don't yet know who the system integrators for asicminer's asics will be nor how efficient their systems will be 'at the wall', but lets presume they're about the same.


Agreed. The main difference will probably be the production cost/gh. Either way these are competative chips.
hero member
Activity: 702
Merit: 500
Quote
Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.

Check the specs from rockminers testing. They have hashing samples in hand.

To be clear about the specs

SP = 4w/7gh = 0.58w/gh
AM = 6.37w/11.5gh = 0.55w/gh

the difference in system performance between ones that utilise 0.58w/gh asics and those for 0.55w/gh aren't significant, and the final system power consumption 'at the wall' will also depend on other factors like how efficient the power supply used, the cooling system, the dc/dc conversion circuitry, the controller etc... so they're pretty much equal at the asic level and may well be equal at the wall too (except spondoolies is already shipping).. and we know that spondoolies has done the rest system design efficiently, and we don't yet know who the system integrators for asicminer's asics will be nor how efficient their systems will be 'at the wall', but lets presume they're about the same.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share (Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)


go buy a calculator.  Cheesy

Please reread what you've quoted.

You cannot be seriously stating that the remaining 60,000 shares have ZERO value?
we are talking about IPO value are we not..? I've reread it and unless you have some sensible reason to ZERO-value 60,000 shares in an IPO then you need to simply accept the overall value, as I have stated in the first instance, was indeed 7500BTC - please advise the VC's or company bigwigs that their remaining 60,000 shares are totally worthless, because I wouldn't dare to think it (but of course, you may be right, who am I to argue?)

You have mistaken total shares with IPO.

wrong, I have valued remaining shares at the same value of the IPO shares, you have simply ZERO-valued them.
I seriously hope that you do not run a business.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share (Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)


go buy a calculator.  Cheesy

Please reread what you've quoted.

You cannot be seriously stating that the remaining 60,000 shares have ZERO value?
we are talking about IPO value are we not..? I've reread it and unless you have some sensible reason to ZERO-value 60,000 shares in an IPO then you need to simply accept the overall value, as I have stated in the first instance, was indeed 7500BTC - please advise the VC's or company bigwigs that their remaining 60,000 shares are totally worthless, because I wouldn't dare to think it (but of course, you may be right, who am I to argue?)

You are confusing total shares with IPO shares.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share (Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)


go buy a calculator.  Cheesy

Please reread what you've quoted.

You cannot be seriously stating that the remaining 60,000 shares have ZERO value?
we are talking about IPO value are we not..? I've reread it and unless you have some sensible reason to ZERO-value 60,000 shares in an IPO then you need to simply accept the overall value, as I have stated in the first instance, was indeed 7500BTC - please advise the VC's or company bigwigs that their remaining 60,000 shares are totally worthless, because I wouldn't dare to think it (but of course, you may be right, who am I to argue?)
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Yeah and AM comes up first in the phone book.  Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share (Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)


go buy a calculator.  Cheesy

Please reread what you've quoted.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
Quote
Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.

Check the specs from rockminers testing. They have hashing samples in hand.

To be clear about the specs

SP = 4w/7gh = 0.58w/gh
AM = 6.37w/11.5gh = 0.55w/gh
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
So you can't or you are afraid to tell a number of months. You are arguing with me because I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months, but can't give a specific time? Then what's the point of the argue? It's just a dead end. I gave you arguments you give me nothing. It's just because you say it so. If the money will be invested in 10 months you will tell me that you won the argument because it was a little more than 2 months while i have a strict deadline of 2 months you have no deadline. Be fair.

Don't get your panties in an uproar.

I believe that the hashing power in question will be deployed within five months.

You say you have given arguments, but I see nothing more than opinion. You haven't backed it up by any arguments. You're all like "I don't believe", "I don't think it will happen", "I find it hard to believe", etc. And that's fine, I have nothing against opinions, just don't try to misrepresent it as "fact" or "arguments".

Anyway, I'm sick of you and you have trolled me all too well. From now on, you are ignored.

Ok. No problem with that. You just prove me that i was right Smiley The argument started when I said that i don't think it will happen in 2 months, you think it will happen in 5 months for a whooping 250% more time. Thank you for proving me right.

Please explain how that "proves" that you're right? From what's been posted, there isn't anything that indicates as such. Have you heard the phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" before? In other words, just because it cannot be proven/verified, it doesn't mean it's completely false. Your own statements say "I don't believe that $50M will be invested into mining in 2 months." At this moment, we all don't know and everything that's been posted is only conjecture and nothing more. The majority of those in favor of AM do not have facts to confirm that those funds will be present when the hardware is available, just as you do not to verify your own claims. No one has been proven right currently, only time will tell.

I said that i don't think people will invest 50M$ in 2 months. bitfair said that i'm wrong, but also that he thinks that people will invest the same amount of money, but in 5 months. How can i be wrong if he thinks that it will take 5 months when i was saying that it won't be possible in just 2 months? Nobody is claiming to be proven or verified, it's just what we think. Yes no one can be proven right right now, but if i come here and state that i don't think one thing and you come and tell me that i am wrong and then you also tell me that you think that it will be possible in 5 months then you just let me win the argument.

Is there another chip with less than 0.55w/gh? Spondoolies is half the GH per chip and bitfury rev2 is something like 0.7w/gh.

Are we comparing power consumption at chip level or system level? You see to mix things up. Please show me proof where AM chips need 0.55W/GH. I haven't see it until now even if they have chips for almost one month now. Very nice derailing, stating that there is no chip that has that w/GH then saying that Spondoolies chip is half GH per chip but no mention of power consumption. Very smooth, but also very noticeably. Spondoolies chip is 0.8W/GH at system level and also 0.58W/Gh at chip level. And they are hashing since March. I don't see any AM chip in the wild hashing right now.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Efficiency comes into play when you're paying for hydro as I am. I recall when selling cubes one respondent in an email saying something to the effect he was an IT guy and wasn't concerned about hydro. I can imagine there's likely more than a few of those around.  Roll Eyes

The other issue with the S1 as was the case of the cube is the cost of the PSU is deferred to the purchaser giving some skewed results. Since some 20% of the market is Ants IMHO a good marketing strategy would be to build rigs suited to the existing PSUs and continue to defer this cost in addition reducing shipping costs, UL or similar approvals costs and show a cost savings to those who are already prepared to accept the equipment. This made the S1 appealing to me when upgrading from cubes. 20% running existing PSUs is a significant number.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
Quote
I have spread no such thing. What rockminer set out to raise and what they actually raised, were two different figures. Please take proper time to read my comments before thrusting out with irrationality to the debate.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rockminer-miners-using-gen3-asicminer-chips-528464
also, please accept my apologies,
I merely recalled what I had read and I recalled wrong now i revisit the thread - 7600BTC 7500BTC.
it's been a whole month since the thread.

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?

ROCKMINER IPO

Share Structure:
Total: 75,000 shares
Public Offering: 15,000 shares
IPO Price: 0.1BTC~0.15BTC/share (Favorable Price for the 1st week: 0.10BTC/share)


go buy a calculator.  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
Quote
I have spread no such thing. What rockminer set out to raise and what they actually raised, were two different figures. Please take proper time to read my comments before thrusting out with irrationality to the debate.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rockminer-miners-using-gen3-asicminer-chips-528464
also, please accept my apologies,
I merely recalled what I had read and I recalled wrong now i revisit the thread - 7600BTC 7500BTC.
it's been a whole month since the thread.

So according to you

15,000 ipo shares at 0.1 per = 7500btc?

And 7gh> 12gh?

Is this not spreading misinformation?
hero member
Activity: 702
Merit: 500
I find it interesting that regardless of process node with all of the various ASIC makers working independently, in this present generation not one really stands out in the crowd as being tremendously more efficient. It gives the appearance that they may be encountering similar issues with power reduction and there may be physical limitations at play. If one were to extrapolate meaning out of this assumption, it would likely equate to lower profitability in future generations of ASICs as the demand to replace ASICs would be less since although more efficient, they may cost significantly more than ones who's R&D is already covered. I'm hesitant to speculate on the profitability of a forthcoming chip achieving significantly greater efficiency in order to justify those costs in light of the physical evidence currently out there.

If one looks at what's happening in the market, there used to be a requirement to buy very large scale rigs to obtain the lowest cost/Gh. Bitmain has been able to cut the price on the miners to the extent the S1, a relatively small unit, is at the present moment arguably one of the most cost competitive miners. It demonstrates the ability to sell an inferior ASIC in volume and even incorporate it into small scale miners as long as you can afford to hit a price point on your equipment. It does so in light of what is offered is technically inferior to what others offer.

i agree with some of your points... although antminer has sold plenty of their cheap & cheerful s1's, i don't think people are buying them cos its the most efficient miner (it isn't)... i think they're simply buying them because its an affordable entry level miner (but running costs make it one of the more expensive to run in its category as its more than 2w/gh)

its not any one thing that makes one system more efficient than another.  there's a lot of variables...

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
Well, in the long term when the reward of mining will be a very low bonus on top of the cost of electricity, small changes in mining efficiency will not be enough to justify the purchase of a new miner.

Therefore, my conclusion would be, get an efficient miner now or within the foreseeable future and hold on to it, as soon "new" mining hardware, unless dirt cheap, will not ROI.
Pages:
Jump to: